Facts
The appellants [A.Y.] and [B.Y.] , residing in Schaffhausen, received profits from the liquidation of two real estate corporations with their seat in the canton of Geneva in 2003. The cantonal tax administration of Schaffhausen taxed the taxpayers for the direct federal tax 2003 and the cantonal and communal taxes 2003, treating the liquidation profits as income from movable private assets.
The taxpayers lodged an objection against the taxation and requested that the profit from the liquidation of [Q.] be taxed as income from self-employed activities. The cantonal tax administration of Geneva corrected its original taxation and stated that the profit from the liquidation of [Q.] had been taxed in the canton of Geneva, as it was business income.
The High Court of the canton of Schaffhausen dismissed the objection and established that the liquidation profits were income from movable assets, which were to be taxed in full at the main tax domicile. The taxpayers lodged an appeal with the Federal Court and requested that the taxation of the direct federal tax 2003 be repealed and the income tax be taxed without offsetting the disputed liquidation profits.
Considerations
I. Direct federal tax
The Federal Court has established that, with regard to the direct federal tax, there is no intercantonal competence conflict and thus no double taxation. The appellants have not sufficiently demonstrated how the calculations made by the lower courts are incorrect. The disputed shares are to be qualified as private assets, and the lower court has correctly qualified the disputed participations as private assets.
II. Cantonal and communal taxes
The Federal Court has established that current double taxation exists in the sense of the Federal Court's case law, as both the canton of Schaffhausen and the canton of Geneva claim taxation of the liquidation profit from [Q.] . The double taxation only affects the cantonal and communal taxes 2003, but not the direct federal tax 2003.
The lower court has established that the canton…